| Title |
Towards an evidence-based model of fear of cancer recurrence for breast cancer survivors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Survivorship, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11764-016-0558-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
José A. E. Custers, Marieke F. M. Gielissen, Johannes H. W. de Wilt, Aafke Honkoop, Tineke J Smilde, Dick-Johan van Spronsen, William van der Veld, Winette T. A. van der Graaf, Judith B. Prins |
| Abstract |
In order to understand the multidimensional mechanism of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and to identify potential targets for interventions, it is important to empirically test the theoretical model of FCR. This study aims at assessing the validity of Lee-Jones et al.'s FCR model. A total of 1205 breast cancer survivors were invited to participate in this study. Participants received a questionnaire booklet including questionnaires on demographics and psychosocial variables including FCR. Data analysis consisted of the estimation of direct and indirect effects in mediator models. A total of 460 women (38 %) participated in the study. Median age was 55.8 years (range 32-87). Indirect effects of external and internal cues via FCR were found for all mediation models with limited planning for the future (R (2) = .28) and body checking (R (2) = .11-.15) as behavioral response variables, with the largest effects for limited planning for the future. A direct relation was found between feeling sick and seeking professional advice, not mediated by FCR. In the first tested models of FCR, all internal and external cues were associated with higher FCR. In the models with limited planning for the future and body checking as behavioral response, an indirect effect of cues via FCR was found supporting the theoretical model of Lee-Jones et al. An evidence-based model of FCR may facilitate the development of appropriate interventions to manage FCR in breast cancer survivors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 30% |
| Belgium | 1 | 10% |
| Sweden | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 22% |
| Researcher | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,227,125
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#426
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,917
of 363,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.